One suggestion that has consistently come up every time I've ever seen rangers discussed is a spell-less variant. Some people just really hate the idea of their ranger casting spells. Now, fixing this is tricky, since spells add a lot of versatility and you'd have to give them some pretty potent abilities to compensate for that. Here's what I've got so far (it's very, very rudimentary, really just a list of ideas):
Rangers are masters of something. Point is, they get new uses for their iconic skills, mostly in Favored Environments, but I don't want to put too much of a stress on that.
Heal (No one ever takes this, because magical healing is always so much better, but Aragorn used it to great effect, and since he's pretty much the ranger, I'd like to make it worthwhile for the Ranger)
-Restore hit points after 5 minute’s worth of care if he’s in one of his favored environments
-Cure ability damage after an hour’s worth of care if**
-Bonus when treating poison or disease if **
Search
-Can find magical traps if**
Survival
-Set good trap really easily in **
-Set alarms
-Duplicate Commune with Nature in **
-Hide from Animals
-Cover tracks
-Endure Elements
Stealth
-Immune to Scent and leave no scent trail
-Nondetection
Perception
-Always get a Perception check to notice ingested poison, don’t get poisoned anyway unless you fail by 10 or more.
-Gain effects of Scent
-Gain Low-light vision, or Darkvision 30 ft if already has Low-Light vision, or add 30 feet to Darkvision if already has that
Swim
-Gain swim speed equal to ¼ base speed
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
One suggestion that has consistently come up every time I've ever seen rangers discussed is a spell-less variant. Some people just really hate the idea of their ranger casting spells. Now, fixing this is tricky, since spells add a lot of versatility and you'd have to give them some pretty potent abilities to compensate for that. Here's what I've got so far (it's very, very rudimentary, really just a list of ideas):
Interestingly, I have an almost opposite suggestion. Perhaps we could add a feat called "Favored Spellcasting" that had two effects:
1. You got a bonus to your caster level equal to your favored enemy bonus vs. those targets.
2. You could substitute one of your favored enemies for a ranger spell that normally affects animals, plants, or vermin.
To wit: animal growth, calm animals, charm animal, command plants, detect animals or plants, hide from animals, hold animal, reduce animal, repel vermin, speak with animals. Thus, a ranger with giants and magical beasts as favored enemies could prepare and cast one or more of these spells as hide from giants, speak with magical beasts, hold giant, or repel magical beasts. These spells may be altered in this fashion only when cast as ranger spells; even if these spells are known and can be cast through a different class, this feat affects only spellcasting from the ranger list.
What do you think? (and apologies if you consider this a threadjack)
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
One suggestion that has consistently come up every time I've ever seen rangers discussed is a spell-less variant. Some people just really hate the idea of their ranger casting spells. Now, fixing this is tricky, since spells add a lot of versatility and you'd have to give them some pretty potent abilities to compensate for that. Here's what I've got so far (it's very, very rudimentary, really just a list of ideas):
Interestingly, I have an almost opposite suggestion. Perhaps we could add a feat called "Favored Spellcasting" that had two effects:
1. You got a bonus to your caster level equal to your favored enemy bonus vs. those targets.
2. You could substitute one of your favored enemies for a ranger spell that normally affects animals, plants, or vermin.
To wit: animal growth, calm animals, charm animal, command plants, detect animals or plants, hide from animals, hold animal, reduce animal, repel vermin, speak with animals. Thus, a ranger with giants and magical beasts as favored enemies could prepare and cast one or more of these spells as hide from giants, speak with magical beasts, hold giant, or repel magical beasts. These spells may be altered in this fashion only when cast as ranger spells; even if these spells are known and can be cast through a different class, this feat affects only spellcasting from the ranger list.
What do you think? (and apologies if you consider this a threadjack)
I like the favored spellcasting idea, but don't think all of the spells would make sense. If giant is a ranger's favored enemy, why would he want to use giant growth (instead of animla growth) on it?
Calm animals also seems a bit out of character. As a favored enemy, a ranger would want to kill his enemy, not calm it down.
|
Back to the original suggestion, I love it. I hate spellcasting rangers, it feels tacked-on and out of character. These are all good suggestions. Perhaps Rangers without full spellcasting would get a full animal companion, too. That would allow for the beastmaster-style ranger that is so common in fiction. I vote for giving rangers the option to cast spells or gain other goodies instead.
|
|
Back to the original suggestion, I love it. I hate spellcasting rangers, it feels tacked-on and out of character. These are all good suggestions. Perhaps Rangers without full spellcasting would get a full animal companion, too. That would allow for the beastmaster-style ranger that is so common in fiction. I vote for giving rangers the option to cast spells or gain other goodies instead.
It's one of the reasons I prefer the Scout class. I just don't care for the "divine protector" role of Rangers. I like to play hard-nosed explorers who often loath the natural world that assaults them.
Interestingly, I have an almost opposite suggestion. Perhaps we could add a feat called "Favored Spellcasting" that had two effects:1. You got a bonus to your caster level equal to your favored enemy bonus vs. those targets.
2. You could substitute one of your favored enemies for a ranger spell that normally affects animals, plants, or vermin.
To wit: animal growth, calm animals, charm animal, command plants, detect animals or plants, hide from animals, hold animal, reduce animal, repel vermin, speak with animals. Thus, a ranger with giants and magical beasts as favored enemies could prepare and cast one or more of these spells as hide from giants, speak with magical beasts, hold giant, or repel magical beasts. These spells may be altered in this fashion only when cast as ranger spells; even if these spells are known and can be cast through a different class, this feat affects only spellcasting from the ranger list.
What do you think? (and apologies if you consider this a threadjack)
Another set of great ideas from Mr. Nelson! Dude!
I think this is a very good idea. However, I don't think that one would work without the other. Otherwise a ranger with a favored enemy with lower saves (e.g. giant will saves vs. dragon will saves) will get a lot more use out of the spell. The dragon is going to be laughing at the saves on a first level 'hide from dragons'.
Another argument for full caster level? I'm not too sure.... Hmm....
Peace,
tfad
Since I also hate the idea of the "nature loving ranger" (except in Forgotten Realms), I use an alternate ranger in my games.
I use the variant that appears on the Complete Champion book, where the ranger loses all its spellcasting ability but gain one more "ranger feat" at level 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20. These "ranger feats" are a selection of feats thematically apropriate plus a custom list based on wich combat style you chose.
Now, this option isn't quite perfect, since it seems that with that the ranger is guy with the most feats in the game (if you count all the bonus feats and all). Besides, it hasn't much flavor... It compensates for the spellcasting, however.
Also, I'm thinking about removing the ranger's animal companion, since this ability seems somewhat linked to the ranger's spellcasting ability (maybe this is just my mind not letting this 3.0 concept let go...), and giving him instead one ability that appeared on a Dragon Class Acts, that allow the ranger to apply his favored enemy bonus to attack as well...
Personally, I'm not that crazy about seeing every kind of variant in the "core" book. I'd rather see a separate book of variants like Unearthed Arcana. YMMV, of course.
Personally, I've always favored rangers getting sneak attack dice in place of spell-casting. Skirmish could work too provided they can still make use of their 2-weapon fighting...
Every variant, no. Playing a ranger that doesn't cast spells but has all sorts of crazy uses for skills that no one else does, though, is hardly "every" variant.
Every variant, no. Playing a ranger that doesn't cast spells but has all sorts of crazy uses for skills that no one else does, though, is hardly "every" variant.
I agree, but this is thread #1000 I've seen so far saying "Pathfinder should have non-Vancian casting options/a totally redesigned fighter/non-spellcasting paladins/spontaneous domain casting for clerics/non-wild shape druids/more skill points for class X in exchange for Y/special martial arts schools for monks/etc."
You can't fit all of them in the base, supposedly-backward-compatible, core rules.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Interestingly, I have an almost opposite suggestion. Perhaps we could add a feat called "Favored Spellcasting" that had two effects:1. You got a bonus to your caster level equal to your favored enemy bonus vs. those targets.
2. You could substitute one of your favored enemies for a ranger spell that normally affects animals, plants, or vermin.
To wit: animal growth, calm animals, charm animal, command plants, detect animals or plants, hide from animals, hold animal, reduce animal, repel vermin, speak with animals. Thus, a ranger with giants and magical beasts as favored enemies could prepare and cast one or more of these spells as hide from giants, speak with magical beasts, hold giant, or repel magical beasts. These spells may be altered in this fashion only when cast as ranger spells; even if these spells are known and can be cast through a different class, this feat affects only spellcasting from the ranger list.
What do you think? (and apologies if you consider this a threadjack)
Another set of great ideas from Mr. Nelson! Dude!
I think this is a very good idea. However, I don't think that one would work without the other. Otherwise a ranger with a favored enemy with lower saves (e.g. giant will saves vs. dragon will saves) will get a lot more use out of the spell. The dragon is going to be laughing at the saves on a first level 'hide from dragons'.
Another argument for full caster level? I'm not too sure.... Hmm....
Peace,
tfad
Thanks for the kudos, but I'll say this: I think that it's okay for the ranger's spells to work differently well vs. different creature types. Some monsters just have higher saves than others, period. Spells like this are not going to be as much use vs. outsiders and dragons as they are against giants and animals and vermin. I think that is perfectly acceptable and reasonable, and also a benefit of why the ranger has more than one favored enemy.
BTW, I liked the idea someone brought up in a related thread about the possibility of rangers 'retraining' their favored enemy bonuses, given how campaigns ebb and flow in terms of what you meet - you may have 5 solid levels of giants and then move off to the Abyss and never see another one but it's wall to wall demons. I don't know if you'd want to give total swapability, but perhaps a reallocation would be nice.
You can't fit all of them in the base, supposedly-backward-compatible, core rules.
This is true, though in starting up a Pathfinder game in Eberron I have discovered that "backwards compatible" is a relative term. Let's just say I've had to jury-rig a lot for every single character.
|
|
I'm also firmly in the No Spells For Rangers camp.
The option quoted above replacing spells with bonus feats certainly works, as does replacing spells with a few additional special abilities.
One nice option might be this: instead of giving a variant class, why not follow the example of having to choose between the two different weapon paths. At the appropriate level, have the Ranger pick between two 'paths' ... a spells path OR the non spell path (which could be the feat option, the special abilities option or even better, some combination of both.)
You can't fit all of them in the base, supposedly-backward-compatible, core rules.This is true, though in starting up a Pathfinder game in Eberron I have discovered that "backwards compatible" is a relative term. Let's just say I've had to jury-rig a lot for every single character.
Agreed. The radically changed clerical domains are probably the worst offenders so far (in my experience).
Small quick suggestion:
What about something like the Rogue Talents for Rangers instead of spellcasting? As the rogue has Minor Arcana and Major Arcana to get a selection of low-level arcane spells, the Ranger could have Minor Nature Magic and Major Nature Magic or whatever. If one wants spell-less rangers, other choices would be available, like the traditional 3.5 variants with trapfinding, sneak attacks, etc.
|
|
Small quick suggestion:
What about something like the Rogue Talents for Rangers instead of spellcasting? As the rogue has Minor Arcana and Major Arcana to get a selection of low-level arcane spells, the Ranger could have Minor Nature Magic and Major Nature Magic or whatever. If one wants spell-less rangers, other choices would be available, like the traditional 3.5 variants with trapfinding, sneak attacks, etc.
This is not a bad idea, but I think it may be better to just give rangers the option of spells OR talents. Trying to work spellcasting into a class via a "talent" system is difficult if you want anything near a regular progression.
This is not a bad idea, but I think it may be better to just give rangers the option of spells OR talents. Trying to work spellcasting into a class via a "talent" system is difficult if you want anything near a regular progression.
Agreed. The way caster levels work, having 1 or 2 levels of spell-casting would be nigh worthless if diluted with other abilities.
A talent tree setup for rangers though would be excellent. Given the "1000s" of posts asking for a non-casting ranger, there is certainly enough support for such an option that it is worth looking into. Hell as popular a class as it is, such an inclusion would be a selling point (if done well).
In terms of talent paths, I'd recommend: Spell-casting (as per standard); Stealth/pass without detection/impediment; decreased armor penalties; Slayer/skirmisher.
A similar non-casting prestige class that I once made has examples of similar progressions: Monster Hunter.
[Allow me to disguise my opinion about the clerical stuff in this unrelated topic: I hate, hate, hate, hate the new rules for domains. There are people who defend, and make some great arguments and all, and surely this makes the cleric more interesting to play, but then, hell, the backwards goes to hell. Just give him something like a spontaneous domain and ta-da, new flavor cleric AND saving some pages.
Even if this ins't what PF will do, and there's reasoning to keep the cleric as the beta shows us, I'll not use it like that.]
Now, back to the ranger, do you people think they big guys will seriously consider removing the spellcasting of the ranger? There are many people who would be happy, and I think it would increase the appeal of the ranger (I know MANY players who just fear any kind of spellcaster -mostly new players, but hell, PF is not designed only to the pros).
Now, back to the ranger, do you people think they big guys will seriously consider removing the spellcasting of the ranger?
No, that would break BWC and upset all the people who like spellcasting rangers.
However, we aren't asking for them to simply remove the Ranger's spellcasting. Instead, we are asking for an alternate option for the existing ranger that allows us to either take spellcasting or take SomethingElse™.
There are many people who would be happy, and I think it would increase the appeal of the ranger (I know MANY players who just fear any kind of spellcaster -mostly new players, but hell, PF is not designed only to the pros).
With the increased complexity of some previously "simple to learn" classes (i.e. the Barbarian), I agree that some options that are easier for new players to pick up are in order. Even the fighter, traditionally one of the simplest classes to play, is fairly demanding to build if only for all the options available to a new player.
While I like talent trees, in terms of thematic/printing-size issues, I'm going to go add my support to a previously suggested idea:
Just as with Combat Style and Hunter's Bond, add an option for rangers to select between Spell-Casting and SomethingElse™.
I personally would like that SomethingElse™ to be sneak attack or skirmish, but there are plenty of other great suggestions in this thread too.
Such an option would make the ranger more viable as a "learning class", and increase the dangerously few options in this vital category. Remember: Not all campaigns start at level 1, and it's not uncommon for a newbie to see a game in progress and join-up as a higher-level character. Case in point: My 1st game of D&D, I got started as a 13th-level Cleric back in 2nd Edition...
The problem with rangers is that by the time they get spellcasting their spells are useless in combat compared to the melee or ranged damage they can deal. On the other hand, if you take their spells away you've ruined backwards compatibility; like it or not, rangers have spells, and if you take their spells away suddenly you have to redo all of the rangers that are already out there.
I think there's a way to fix it; give rangers combat-oriented spells that can be cast as swift actions. There are a few ranger spells like that in the Spell Compendium, like rhino's rush (double damage on a single charge attack). It's helpful during combat and not a waste of their spellcasting ability. A few more spells like that, whether new ones or taken from other spellcasting lists, would go a long way.
It also fixes the backwards compatibility issue; you could run printed rangers as is if you wanted, or at the most swap a couple of spells out, and you're done.
|
|
The problem with rangers is that by the time they get spellcasting their spells are useless in combat compared to the melee or ranged damage they can deal. On the other hand, if you take their spells away you've ruined backwards compatibility; like it or not, rangers have spells, and if you take their spells away suddenly you have to redo all of the rangers that are already out there.
I think there's a way to fix it; give rangers combat-oriented spells that can be cast as swift actions. There are a few ranger spells like that in the Spell Compendium, like rhino's rush (double damage on a single charge attack). It's helpful during combat and not a waste of their spellcasting ability. A few more spells like that, whether new ones or taken from other spellcasting lists, would go a long way.
It also fixes the backwards compatibility issue; you could run printed rangers as is if you wanted, or at the most swap a couple of spells out, and you're done.
I think there's a way to fix it; give rangers combat-oriented spells that can be cast as swift actions. There are a few ranger spells like that in the Spell Compendium, like rhino's rush (double damage on a single charge attack). It's helpful during combat and not a waste of their spellcasting ability. A few more spells like that, whether new ones or taken from other spellcasting lists, would go a long way.It also fixes the backwards compatibility issue; you could run printed rangers as is if you wanted, or at the most swap a couple of spells out, and you're done.
Not sure about that, Ranger spells seem to have some focus on non-combat (speak with animal) and some useful protection (Resist energy, Endure Elements), boosts and "secondary healer" options. I see them as "small tricks up the sleeve". Introducing too much combat kick-ass could be a bit of overpower.
|
|
Not sure about that, Ranger spells seem to have some focus on non-combat (speak with animal) and some useful protection (Resist energy, Endure Elements), boosts and "secondary healer" options. I see them as "small tricks up the sleeve". Introducing too much combat kick-ass could be a bit of overpower.
The ranger spells WotC introduced toward the middle and end of the 3.5 run were all about combat enhancement, and were extremely popular; given the small amount of casting rangers get, it's difficult to make them too powerful with spells, because they just can't use very many very often. A useful spell like pounce or arrow mind can only be cast once or twice a day; they effectively become class abilities with 1/day or 2/day use limitations, and are pretty well balanced for it.
The ranger spells WotC introduced toward the middle and end of the 3.5 run were all about combat enhancement, and were extremely popular; given the small amount of casting rangers get, it's difficult to make them too powerful with spells, because they just can't use very many very often. A useful spell like pounce or arrow mind can only be cast once or twice a day; they effectively become class abilities with 1/day or 2/day use limitations, and are pretty well balanced for it.
Fair enough and no problems, though I have never used any of them in my campaigns; still, I personally would not like to see Ranger spell list becoming too combat focused to the detriment of his "nature tricks". If more combat spells are introduced, maybe the non-combat ones should be made more attractive by lowering their level.
I'd be happy to replace the ranger spell-casting with Fast Movement at 4th or 6th-level and give them fighter bonus feats at the other levels where they gain spells. I'd also be happy to allow to take a feat to cast their few spells spontaneously.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
One suggestion that has consistently come up every time I've ever seen rangers discussed is a spell-less variant. Some people just really hate the idea of their ranger casting spells.
The ideal of "ranger" that lives in my head vies with "bard" and "factotem" for the jack-of-all-trades character class, except that a factotem is a magpie who steals shiny odds and ends, a bard dabbles in all the things that interest her, and the rangers have developed a coherent self-sufficiency program.
Interestingly, I have an almost opposite suggestion. Perhaps we could add a feat called "Favored Spellcasting" that had two effects:
1. You got a bonus to your caster level equal to your favored enemy bonus vs. those targets.
2. You could substitute one of your favored enemies for a ranger spell that normally affects animals, plants, or vermin.
To wit: animal growth, calm animals, charm animal, command plants, detect animals or plants, hide from animals, hold animal, reduce animal, repel vermin, speak with animals.
Very nice. (I'd think twice about the "command", though. "Command favored enemies, including evil outsiders" is a lot more powerful than Command Plants. And I want the ranger to buy this feat once for each favored enemy she wants to substitute.)
(threadjack: Can anybody tell me why Control Plants is four levels higher than Command Plants? I mean, come on.)
And, for those people who can't imagine why you'd want to speak with favored enemies (that is, "listen in to favored enemies' discussions") or enlarge favored enemies (that is, "enjamb favored enemies"), it's just a matter of imagination.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
One suggestion that has consistently come up every time I've ever seen rangers discussed is a spell-less variant. Some people just really hate the idea of their ranger casting spells.
The ideal of "ranger" that lives in my head vies with "bard" and "factotem" for the jack-of-all-trades character class, except that a factotem is a magpie who steals shiny odds and ends, a bard dabbles in all the things that interest her, and the rangers have developed a coherent self-sufficiency program.
Interestingly, I have an almost opposite suggestion. Perhaps we could add a feat called "Favored Spellcasting" that had two effects:
1. You got a bonus to your caster level equal to your favored enemy bonus vs. those targets.
2. You could substitute one of your favored enemies for a ranger spell that normally affects animals, plants, or vermin.
To wit: animal growth, calm animals, charm animal, command plants, detect animals or plants, hide from animals, hold animal, reduce animal, repel vermin, speak with animals.
Very nice. (I'd think twice about the "command", though. "Command favored enemies, including evil outsiders" is a lot more powerful than Command Plants. And I want the ranger to buy this feat once for each favored enemy she wants to substitute.)
(threadjack: Can anybody tell me why Control Plants is four levels higher than Command Plants? I mean, come on.)
And, for those people who can't imagine why you'd want to speak with favored enemies (that is, "listen in to favored enemies' discussions") or enlarge favored enemies (that is, "enjamb favored enemies"), it's just a matter of imagination.
One thing that is often overlooked about all of these is that your 'favored enemies' can also be your allies. There is no social penalty for interacting with a 'favored enemy.' Thus, speak with ... could enable you to talk with (and use your Bluff/Sense Motive bonus against) favored enemies.
It's true that some of these spells could be much more useful, but remember these things:
1. These are all still based on the ranger being a half-caster, so his CL is just going to be 'pretty good' instead of 'el sucko.'
2. The ranger's prime stat isn't likely to be Wisdom, so his save DCs will suck.
3. The ranger gets very few spells per day, and is giving up actions to try these spells instead of attacking (his main shtick).
4. The ranger is still going to be very limited in which spells he can use these on, cuz he only has a couple of favored enemies.
I don't know that it's too over the top. I can see the point of requiring the feat separately for each favored enemy, but it's also a self-limited problem because most of the benefits are only as good as your favored enemy bonus is.
TYPO/EDIT NOTE: In looking at the PF Beta book, both command plants and control plants are missing their descriptions in the spells chapter. They are listed in the druid and ranger spell lists, but nowhere to be found in the description section.
|
Small quick suggestion:
What about something like the Rogue Talents for Rangers instead of spellcasting? As the rogue has Minor Arcana and Major Arcana to get a selection of low-level arcane spells, the Ranger could have Minor Nature Magic and Major Nature Magic or whatever. If one wants spell-less rangers, other choices would be available, like the traditional 3.5 variants with trapfinding, sneak attacks, etc.
THIS.
I, too, would like to see a more "martial" ranger class in PF, since in any case spellcasting has been a minor/weak (but yet annoying to track) feature of the class. As it stands, I think the ranger in Beta is mechanically and thematically the best version of the class ever -- removing an insignificant class feature to further emphasize the "strong" abilities of the class would be a good idea. In my opinion there are two ways to best achieve this:
1) 'Ranger/Nature Talents' (like Andreas suggests)
2) 'Nature Powers' that function similar to Rage Powers
TYPO/EDIT NOTE: In looking at the PF Beta book, both command plants and control plants are missing their descriptions in the spells chapter. They are listed in the druid and ranger spell lists, but nowhere to be found in the description section.
The "S" next to the spell name means that you use the version that's in the 3.5 SRD for now.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
The "S" next to the spell name means that you use the version that's in the 3.5 SRD for now.TYPO/EDIT NOTE: In looking at the PF Beta book, both command plants and control plants are missing their descriptions in the spells chapter. They are listed in the druid and ranger spell lists, but nowhere to be found in the description section.
Aha. Missed that. Thanks for pointing it out.
1) 'Ranger/Nature Talents' (like Andreas suggests)
2) 'Nature Powers' that function similar to Rage Powers
Both of them would amount to the same thing and sound fine. Again, I just would not give too many combat-like talents which stacked with his Favored Enemy bonuses and similar stuff. In our running playtest RotRL, our 10th level beta ranger fells Stone Giants with insane speed, I feel that additional magic boosts stacked could be a wee too much...
Also, one little advantage of the Ranger having spells was preparation versatility. If a trek through desert or tundra was expected, Endure Elements was in order. For investigation, Speak with Animals is a very good asset. If the party ran into enemies who used trained animals or even steeds, Charm Animal and Hold Animal would come in range (a warlord may be 10th level and have a good Will save, but his warhorse is gonna be quite the treat for a high Wis ranger with Hold or Charm Animal in mind). "Spell" memorization (even if one doesn't go for the nature-worshipping ranger model) did emulate this "many talents" capacity of the class, which did not have chances to shine in every adventure, but made quite a difference when the occasion came about.
Now the question is, can we emulate this with Talents (and a point mechanic similar to Barbarians and Monks) or with Spontaneous casting? Unless we feed many talents into the ranger (or assign them in "packages"), he might lose versatility, something which seems to go against the spirit of the class.
Well, even WotC created some variant rules for Rangers and Paladins without spellcasting... If you look on the Complete Warrior, the ideas they presented there are not bad. Of course, those rules are trademarked and so I am not sure if Paizo can utilize them without some tweaks. But backwards compatibility is not a real issue if you make a choice for the player - either you stick with spellcasting, or you take something else.
A friend of mine has always chosen the non-spellcasting variant for his Rangers and Paladins, for example.
Not sure about that, Ranger spells seem to have some focus on non-combat (speak with animal) and some useful protection (Resist energy, Endure Elements), boosts and "secondary healer" options. I see them as "small tricks up the sleeve". Introducing too much combat kick-ass could be a bit of overpower.The ranger spells WotC introduced toward the middle and end of the 3.5 run were all about combat enhancement, and were extremely popular; given the small amount of casting rangers get, it's difficult to make them too powerful with spells, because they just can't use very many very often. A useful spell like pounce or arrow mind can only be cast once or twice a day; they effectively become class abilities with 1/day or 2/day use limitations, and are pretty well balanced for it.
I think this is a good idea ....
I would love to see a spellcasting / non-spellcasting fork in the road for rangers in the final Pathfinder release. This idea makes a lot of people happy in a way that's consistent with how you expect ranger progression to work in other areas. Combining the proposed fork in the road with Combat Style and Hunter's Bond allows eight combinations, allowing the core ranger class to cover more character concepts with less recourse to supplements or house rules.
I also liked the idea of making spells work better against favored enemies. A similar spell bonus should also apply to Quarry in that case, since attack rolls against a selected quarry gain a +2 insight bonus and all critical threats are automatically confirmed. There must be an interesting way to give spells a similar insight boost.
I totally agree with the option of having a non-spellcasting Ranger. In the games i've run or played, this request would often pop up. I've have on more than one occasion seen players ask me if they could trade their spells for some other ability...often an ability that would actually be worse than the spell they would get...it just didn't make sense to them that their character would all of a sudden start slinging spells.
Most players i've seen with a Ranger, takes the class because they want to be some kind of Scout or Archer or Woodsman... Having spells don't make much sense to their character concept.
The spells do feel tacked on. I get the feeling that way back when they created the ranger class, they needed to give it some abilities and spells were the only thing they could think of (Back in 2nd ed, warrior classes other than the fighter all had spells...?!?).
I don't really have any suggestions on what could be a good replacement but would really be excited if this option would get into Pathfinder.
M
|
|
This is pretty much my experience as well, and very well put I might add.
Most people that choose to play a Ranger do indeed want to be some kind of Scout or Archer or Woodsman - having spells don't make much sense to their character concept and actually kind of go against it.
Suddenly gaining spells just feels off. It's just hard to imagine an Aragorn or Robin Hood archetype (which, let's face it, is pretty much what the Ranger is designed to portray) running through the woods, across the plains etc, bow in hand, tracking his enemy etc for months or years and then waking up one day and saying "Hey, cool, I can cast spells now! Neato!"
Sorry, but I just really hate Rangers casting spells.
I'm playing a Ranger/Rogue right now in a COTCT campaign and I'm already wondering how my DM will feel about me wanting to swap spells for something else, like Feats when I get to that level.
I REALLY hope the final rules at least put a sidebar in the Ranger section offering alternatives for non spellcasting Rangers. In fact, in the interest of backwards compatibility and keeping the core Ranger more or less in tact, a sidebar with a few options as suggested probably is the best way to go (although I do still REALLY like my Spellcasting or Non Spellcasting choice to follow the Archery or Two Weapon Fighting choice idea a lot ...)
I totally agree with the option of having a non-spellcasting Ranger. In the games i've run or played, this request would often pop up. I've have on more than one occasion seen players ask me if they could trade their spells for some other ability...often an ability that would actually be worse than the spell they would get...it just didn't make sense to them that their character would all of a sudden start slinging spells.
Most players i've seen with a Ranger, takes the class because they want to be some kind of Scout or Archer or Woodsman... Having spells don't make much sense to their character concept.
The spells do feel tacked on. I get the feeling that way back when they created the ranger class, they needed to give it some abilities and spells were the only thing they could think of (Back in 2nd ed, warrior classes other than the fighter all had spells...?!?).
I don't really have any suggestions on what could be a good replacement but would really be excited if this option would get into Pathfinder.
M
Been staying clear of this thread mostly because I like rangers with spells but I thought I would make a couple of comments.
Granting Sneak Attack or a Skirmish ability to the ranger is not a good idea. I don't think adding a complete other set of 'precision'/ bonus damage to a single class is appropriate, overall it makes for very messy combat. You could eliminate the favored enemy bonus and give it skirmish but FE is a staple ranger ability and it's unlikely to go. My suggestion is that if you want skirmish you adapt the Scout Class to Pathfinder, I don't think it's that hard to adapt.
Spellcasting is a relatively weak class ability for the ranger because the progression is slow and even worse because it requires a high wisdom which takes away from the classes primary attributes (Dex, Str, Con). I suggest you let the ranger move in on the rogues territory just a little bit. Give the ranger Trap Finding at 4th level and a Rogue trick at 4th level and every 4 levels after that. The ranger wouldn't be able to use any rogue tricks that refer to sneak attack. Alternately rogue tricks that referred to sneak attack would trigger whenever the ranger uses his favored enemy bonus.
|
|
Howabout this?
Rangers may optionally chose to Forsake spells. If you do so gain the following benefits.
1) Gain an Additional Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain.
2) You gain both Benefits of the Hunter's Bond.
3) You gain additional Bonus with Favored Enemies and Terrains equal to the highest level of spell you would be able to cast.
Howabout this?
Rangers may optionally chose to Forsake spells. If you do so gain the following benefits.
1) Gain an Additional Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain.
2) You gain both Benefits of the Hunter's Bond.
3) You gain additional Bonus with Favored Enemies and Terrains equal to the highest level of spell you would be able to cast.
Not quite enough to compensate for the lack of spells. I think an easy fix would be to make the animal companion more powerful (suggested earlier in the thread) and/or give them some list of talents. I like the idea of the ranger as a loner/hunter. Aragorn, let's remember, did not cast spells. He had a healing touch passed down from his ancestors, more like the Paladin's Lay on Hands than a Cure__Wounds spell.
I would also like to add my support to the idea of two distinct rangers one that casts spells the other does not. I don't think it would be too great of a stretch, after all you do it with missile weapon and melee weapon specialist rangers. just my 2 cents.
I think giving up spells for sneak attack isn't that far out for a ranger. Not a lot of sneak attack damage though, maybe just 1d6 every 4 or 5 levels. I usually grab some levels in rogue anyway because the two classes stack so well together. If I had the option to give the spells up (which I generally don't use anyways) for a few sneak attack damage dice I wouldn't multiclass between ranger and rogue as much (I'd still like to find a way to get trapfinding, but I can do without it), which is part of what pathfinder is trying to cut down on right?
For everyone who hates ranger spellcasting, would their "spells" be more palatable if they were described as "optional class features"? For example, instead of being able to cast cure light wounds, tell yourself you have the class ability to heal 1d8 + 1/2 level hp 1/day (to use the healing example given). You don't cast pass without trace; instead, your "trackless step" ability improves, allowing you to apply it to others with whom you are travelling. Etc.
In this manner, "spells" actually become "ranger talents" (just like rogue talents, but 1/day each). The mechanics are the same as they were, and they take up no extra space in the rulebook, but the flavor is a lot better.